The plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of her suit was rejected as the demarcation report showed lawful encroachment on government land.

1. This is plaintiff's first appeal under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (for brevity 'the CPC') challenging the judgment and decree dated 6-1-2009 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Raipur, in civil suit No.13 - A / 2006 whereby and whereunder the appellant / plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration for restraining the defendant - Municipal Corporation, Raipur (for brevity 'the Corporation'), not to demolish the building constructed by her on the land owned and possessed by her bearing khasra No.221/10 and 221/14 situated at village Mathpuraina, Tahsil & District Raipur. Plaintiff also prayed that the said part of the building which has already been damaged by the Corporation be rebuild and compensate the plaintiff with further prayer for declaration that the memo issued by the Zone - 6 of the Corporation dated 1-5-2006 treating the plaintiff as encroacher of the Government land, is illegal and contrary to law.

3. According to the plaintiff she is the owner in possession of land bearing khasra No.221/10 area 0.485 hectares and khasra No.221/14 area 0.324 hectare, situated at PH No.105, village Mathpuraina, Tahsil & District Raipur, which has been diverted for non - agriculture purposes was subjected to illegal demarcation and thereafter the part of the building constructed over the suit land has been demolished and the Corporation intends to demolish the remaining part although the plaintiff has obtained required building permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat as at the relevant time the area was included within the geographical limits of the Gram Panchayat and was later on included within the limits of the Corporation. Plaintiff further stated that the demarcation report obtained by the Corporation in collusion with the Revenue authorities is, prima facie, illegal for the reason that notice of the said demarcation was sent to the plaintiff at a different address than the one at which previous notices were served to the plaintiff.

4. Plaintiff had earlier preferred W.P. No.1867 of 2004 wherein interim order was allowed in her favour restraining the respondents therein from demolishing the structure without following the prescribed procedure. The writ petition was eventually disposed of on 11-4-2005 recording the submission of the Corporation's counsel that the plaintiff shall not be evicted from the disputed land without following the procedure prescribed under the law reserving liberty to the plaintiff to file appropriate proceedings available under the law in the event of accrual of new cause of action.

5. Plaintiff thereafter preferred WP No.3048 of 2005 in which an order of status quo was passed on 15-7-2005 and subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 24-8-2005 allowing the Corporation to approach the Revenue Department for demarcation of the land belonging to the respondent No.4 therein (defendant herein) as well as the petitioner therein (plaintiff herein) in presence of both the parties. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred yet another writ petition bearing W.P. No.2735 of 2006 in which an interim order of maintaining status quo was passed on 12-6-2006, however, the writ petition was disposed of on 10-7-2006 holding that there being disputed questions of facts involved in the matter the petitioner (plaintiff) is required to approach the civil Court for redressal of her grievance, but at the same time restraining the Corporation from carrying out any further demolition for a further period of 7 days.

6. Plaintiff thereafter filed an application under O.39, R